attack. and after acknowledged the attack. and after wednesday's trial portion can conclude, senator two pavel spoke to reporters and confirm the call he had with the president and did not dispute manager cecily description in any way that there was a call between he and the president. —— senator tuberville. this was around the time that mike pence was being ushered out of the chamber. and that was shortly after 2pm. and senator tuberville specifically said that he told the president, "mr president, theyjust took the told the president, "mr president, they just took the vice president out and i have to go." that was shortly after two p:m.. they were still hours of chaos and carnage and mayhem in the vice president and his family were still in danger at that point. our commander—in—chief did nothing. point. our commander-in-chief did nothinu. ., , ., ., nothing. counsel for the former president _

nothing. counsel for the former president. the _ nothing. counsel for the former president. the answer - nothing. counsel for the former president. the answer is - nothing. counsel for the former president. the answer is no. i nothing. counsel for the former president. the answer is no. atj nothing. counsel for the former i president. the answer is no. at no oint was president. the answer is no. at no point was the _ president. the answer is no. at no point was the president _ president. the answer is no. at no point was the president informed i president. the answer is no. at no i point was the president informed the vice president was in any danger because — vice president was in any danger because the house rushed through this impeachment in seven days with no evidence, there is nothing at all in the _ no evidence, there is nothing at all in the record — no evidence, there is nothing at all in the record on this point. because the house _ in the record on this point. because the house failed to do even a minimum _ the house failed to do even a minimum amount of due diligence. what _ minimum amount of due diligence. what the _ minimum amount of due diligence. what the president didn't know is that there — what the president didn't know is that there was a violent... there was a _ that there was a violent... there was a violent riot happening at the capitot _ was a violent riot happening at the capitol. that's why he repeatedly called _ capitol. that's why he repeatedly caiied via — capitol. that's why he repeatedly called via tweet and via video for the riots— called via tweet and via video for the riots to — called via tweet and via video for the riots to stop, to be peaceful, to respect— the riots to stop, to be peaceful, to respect capitol police and law enforcement and to commit no violence — enforcement and to commit no violence and to go home. but to be clear. _ violence and to go home. but to be clear. this — violence and to go home. but to be clear. this is — violence and to go home. but to be clear, this is an article of impeachment for incitement. this is not arr— impeachment for incitement. this is not an article of impeachment for anything — not an article of impeachment for anything else. it's a one count, they— anything else. it's a one count, they could _ anything else. it's a one count, they could have charged anything

they could have charged anything they wanted. they chose to charge incitement. so that the question although— incitement. so that the question although answered directly know, it is not _ although answered directly know, it is not really relevant to the charges _ is not really relevant to the charges for the impeachment in this case: _ charges for the impeachment in this case, and _ charges for the impeachment in this case, and i— charges for the impeachment in this case, and ijust wanted to clear up one more — case, and ijust wanted to clear up one more thing. mr castro and his first answer — one more thing. mr castro and his first answer may have spoke, but what _ first answer may have spoke, but what he — first answer may have spoke, but what he said was mr trump had said "fight— what he said was mr trump had said "fight to _ what he said was mr trump had said "fight to the death". that's false. i "fight to the death". that's false. i am _ "fight to the death". that's false. i am hoping — "fight to the death". that's false. i am hoping he "fight to the death". that's false. lam hoping he misspoke. thank you. mr president. the i am hoping he misspoke. thank you. mr president-— mr president. the senator from minnesota- _ mr president. the senator from minnesota. mr— mr president. the senator from minnesota. mr president - mr president. the senator from minnesota. mr president on - mr president. the senator from i minnesota. mr president on behalf mr president. the senator from - minnesota. mr president on behalf of m self and minnesota. mr president on behalf of myself and senators _ minnesota. mr president on behalf of myself and senators casey _ minnesota. mr president on behalf of myself and senators casey and - minnesota. mr president on behalf of. myself and senators casey and brown, i sent a question to the desk. —— casey and braun.

it's a question from senator clover char, sunder casey, sunder brown to the house managers, the clerk will report. —— senator colby char. —— amy klobuchar. in report. -- senator colby char. -- amy klobuchar.— report. -- senator colby char. -- amy klobuchar. in presenting your case, ou amy klobuchar. in presenting your case. you provide _ amy klobuchar. in presenting your case, you provide on _ amy klobuchar. in presenting your case, you provide on past - amy klobuchar. in presenting yourl case, you provide on past president from _ case, you provide on past president from impeachment _ case, you provide on past president from impeachment trials _ case, you provide on past president from impeachment trials such - case, you provide on past president from impeachment trials such as i from impeachment trials such as william — from impeachment trials such as william belknap's_ from impeachment trials such as william belknap's inc. _ from impeachment trials such as| william belknap's inc. treatment from impeachment trials such as - william belknap's inc. treatment —— and he _ william belknap's inc. treatment —— and be after— william belknap's inc. treatment —— and be after what _ william belknap's inc. treatment —— and be after what you _ william belknap's inc. treatment —— and be after what you are _ william belknap's inc. treatment —— and be after what you are presentedj and be after what you are presented in the _ and be after what you are presented in the course — and be after what you are presented in the course of _ and be after what you are presented in the course of this _ and be after what you are presented in the course of this trial, _ and be after what you are presented in the course of this trial, if - and be after what you are presented in the course of this trial, if we - in the course of this trial, if we do not — in the course of this trial, if we do not convict _ in the course of this trial, if we do not convict former- in the course of this trial, if we | do not convict former president trump. — do not convict former president trump, what _ do not convict former president trump, what message - do not convict former president trump, what message will- do not convict former president trump, what message will we i do not convict former president. trump, what message will we be

sending — trump, what message will we be sending to — trump, what message will we be sending to future _ trump, what message will we be sending to future presidents - trump, what message will we be sending to future presidents and | sending to future presidents and congresses? _ president trump engaged in a course of conduct that incited an armed attack on the capitol. he did so while seeking to overturn the results of the election and thwart the transfer of power. and when the attack began, he further incited violence, aimed to his own vice president, even as demonstrated his state of mind by failing to defend us and the law enforcement officials who protect us. the consequences of his conduct were devastating on every level. police officers were

left overwhelmed, unprotected. congress have to be evacuated. our staff barricaded in this building, and theirfamilies to staff barricaded in this building, and their families to say goodbye. —— congress had to be. some of us like mr raskin had children here. and these people in this building, some of whom were on the fbi's watch west, took photos, stole laptops, destroyed precious statutes, including one ofjohn lewis. desecrated the statue of a recently deceased member of congress who stood for nonviolence. —— precious statues. this was devastating, and the world watched. us. and the world is still watching us. to see what we will do this day and will know what we did this day 100 years from now.

those are the immediate consequences and our actions will reverberate as to what other future consequences. the extremists who attacked the capitol at the president's provocation will be emboldened. all our intelligence agencies have confirmed this. it is not house managers saying that. there are quite literally standing by and standing ready. donald trump told them this is only the beginning. they are waiting and watching. to see if donald trump is right that everyone said this was totally appropriate. let me also bring something else up. i'll briefly say the defence counsel's put a lot of videos out in their defence playing

clip after clip of black women talking about fighting for a cause oran talking about fighting for a cause or an issue or a policy. it was not lost on me as so many of them were people of colour and women and black women, black women like myself who are sick and tired of being sick and tired for our children. your children. 0ur tired for our children. your children. our children. this summer, things happened that were violent. but there were also things that gave some of us black women great comfort, seeing amish people from pennsylvania standing up with us. members of congress fighting up with us. and so i thought we were past that. i think maybe we're not. there are long—standing consequences. decisions like this that will define who we are as people, who america

is. we have in this room made monumental decisions. you all have made monumental decisions. we've declared wars, passed the civil rights acts, ensured that no one in this country is a slave, every american has the right to vote, unless you live in a territory. at this time, some of these decisions are even controversial. but history has shown that they define us as a country and as a people. today, is one of those moments in history will wait for our decision. —— and history. wait for our decision. -- and histo . ~ wait for our decision. -- and history-— wait for our decision. -- and histo . ~ , , ., ., history. mr president. the senator from utah- — history. mr president. the senator from utah- i— history. mr president. the senator from utah. i send _ history. mr president. the senator from utah. i send a _ history. mr president. the senator from utah. i send a question - history. mr president. the senator from utah. i send a question from| from utah. i send a question from the desk.

from utah. i send a question from the desk- -- _ from utah. i send a question from the desk. -- for _ from utah. i send a question from the desk. -- for the _ from utah. i send a question from the desk. -- for the desk. - the senators from utah sends a question on behalf of himself, sunder portman, sunder blackburn, and the question is for the council for the former president, clerk will read. —— senator portman, senator lee, senator blackburn... read. -- senator portman, senator lee, senator blackburn. . .- lee, senator blackburn... multiple state constitutions _ lee, senator blackburn... multiple state constitutions enacted -

lee, senator blackburn... multiple state constitutions enacted prior i lee, senator blackburn... multiplej state constitutions enacted prior to 1787. _ state constitutions enacted prior to 1787. namely— state constitutions enacted prior to 1787, namely the _ state constitutions enacted prior to 1787, namely the constitutions - state constitutions enacted prior to 1787, namely the constitutions of. 1787, namely the constitutions of delaware. — 1787, namely the constitutions of delaware, virginia, _ 1787, namely the constitutions ofi delaware, virginia, pennsylvania, and vermont _ delaware, virginia, pennsylvania, and vermont specifically- delaware, virginia, pennsylvania, and vermont specifically provided j and vermont specifically provided for the _ and vermont specifically provided for the impeachment _ and vermont specifically provided for the impeachment of— and vermont specifically provided for the impeachment of a - and vermont specifically provided for the impeachment of a formerl for the impeachment of a former officer _ for the impeachment of a former officer given— for the impeachment of a former officer. given that _ for the impeachment of a former officer. given that the _ for the impeachment of a former officer. given that the framers . for the impeachment of a formerj officer. given that the framers of the us— officer. given that the framers of the us constitution _ officer. given that the framers of the us constitution would - officer. given that the framers of the us constitution would have l officer. given that the framers of- the us constitution would have been aware _ the us constitution would have been aware of— the us constitution would have been aware of these — the us constitution would have been aware of these provisions, _ the us constitution would have been aware of these provisions, does- aware of these provisions, does their— aware of these provisions, does their decision _ aware of these provisions, does their decision to— aware of these provisions, does their decision to omit _ aware of these provisions, does their decision to omit language | their decision to omit language specifically— their decision to omit language specifically authorising - their decision to omit language specifically authorising the - specifically authorising the impeachment _ specifically authorising the impeachment of— specifically authorising the impeachment of former. specifically authorising the - impeachment of former officials indicate — impeachment of former officials indicate that _ impeachment of former officials indicate that they— impeachment of former officials indicate that they did _ impeachment of former officials indicate that they did not - impeachment of former officials indicate that they did not intend for our— indicate that they did not intend for our constitution _ indicate that they did not intend for our constitution to— indicate that they did not intend for our constitution to allow- indicate that they did not intend for our constitution to allow for| for our constitution to allow for the impeachment _ for our constitution to allow for the impeachment of— for our constitution to allow for the impeachment of former- for our constitution to allow for- the impeachment of former officials? good question. and the answer is yes. _ good question. and the answer is yes, of— good question. and the answer is yes, of course they left it out. the framers _ yes, of course they left it out. the framers were very smart men. and they went — framers were very smart men. and they went over draught after draught after draught on that document. and

they reviewed all the other draughts of all the _ they reviewed all the other draughts of all the state constitutions, all of all the state constitutions, all of them — of all the state constitutions, all of them. and they picked and choose to what— of them. and they picked and choose to what they wanted and they discarded what they did not. and what _ discarded what they did not. and what they— discarded what they did not. and what they discarded was the option for ali— what they discarded was the option for all of— what they discarded was the option for all of you to impeach a former elected _ for all of you to impeach a former elected official. i hope that's answering your question, thank you. -- draft _ answering your question, thank you. -- draft after— answering your question, thank you. —— draft after draught. mr -- draft after draught. mr president. _ -- draft after draught. mr president. the _ -- draft after draught. mr president. the senator i -- draft after draught. mr i president. the senator from california — president. the senator from california. mr— president. the senator from california. mr president, - president. the senator from california. mr president, i. president. the senator from i california. mr president, i sent president. the senator from - california. mr president, i sent a auestion california. mr president, i sent a question to _ california. mr president, i sent a question to the _ california. mr president, i sent a question to the desk. _

the senator from california submits the question for the house managers, the question for the house managers, the clerk will report.— the clerk will report. having been on the front _ the clerk will report. having been on the front lines _ the clerk will report. having been on the front lines of— the clerk will report. having been on the front lines of combating i the clerk will report. having been. on the front lines of combating the bil on the front lines of combating the big y_ on the front lines of combating the big y over— on the front lines of combating the big y over the past four years as caiifornia's— big y over the past four years as california's chief elections officer. _ california's chief elections officer, it is clear that president trump _ officer, it is clear that president trump 's — officer, it is clear that president trump 's pot to undermine the 2020 eiection— trump 's pot to undermine the 2020 election was built on lies and conspiracy theories. how did this plot to— conspiracy theories. how did this plot to unconstitutionally keep president trump in power lead to the radicalisation of so many of president trump's followers and the resulting _ president trump's followers and the resulting attack on the capitol? —— the big _ resulting attack on the capitol? —— the big lie —

senators, donald trump spent months inciting his base to believe their election was stolen. and that was the point, that was the thing that would get people so angry. think about that. what it would take to get a large group of thousands of americans so angry to storm the capitol. that was the purpose behind donald trump saying that the election had been bricked and that the election had been stolen. and to be clear when he says the election is still in it, what he is saying is that the victory and he even says one time, the election victory is

being stolen from them. think about how significant that is to americans. again, you are right, i think a 7k million people voted for donald trump. and this was not a one—off comment. —— about 7k million. it was not one time, it was over and over and over and over again with a purpose. we're not having this impeachment trial here because donald trump contested the election. as i during the presentation, nobody here wants to lose an election, we all run of her races to win our elections, but what president trump did was different. what our commander—in—chief did was the polar opposite of what we're supposed to do. we let the people decide the elections. except president trump. he directed all of that range that he had incited to

january 6th, at the last chance, again to him, this was his last chance, this was certifying the election results. he needed to whip up election results. he needed to whip up that mob, amped them up enough to get out there and try and stop the election results, the certification of the election. and y'all, they took over the senate chamber to do that. they almost took over the house chamber. there were 50 or so house chamber. there were 50 or so house members who were literally scared for their wives up in the gallery. a woman who bought into that big lie died because she believed the president's big lie. this resulted in a loss of one of his supporters's lives. a capitol police officer died that day. other of president trump's supporters. to

capitol police officers ended up taking their own lives. the defence counsel, their defence is basically everything president trump did is ok and he can do it again. is that what we believe? that there is no problem with that? that it's perfectly fine if he does the same thing all over again? this is dangerous. he's inciting his base, he was using the claim of a rate of action. we have never seen somebody do that over and over and over again, tell a lie, say six months ahead of time that it's a recollection. there is a dangerous consequence to that. when you've got millions of followers on twitter and millions of followers on twitter and millions of followers on twitter and millions of followers on facebook and you've got that huge bully pulpit from the white house and you're the president of the united states. there is a cost to doing that. people are listening to you in

a way that quite honestly they are not listening to me and they are not listening to all of us in this room. ijust want to listening to all of us in this room. i just want to clear up the defence counsel made a point about something that i read earlier, the defence counsel suggested i misspoke. and i want to clarify for the record that the tweet i referenced, let me redo the tweet i referenced, let me redo the tweet i referenced, let me redo the tweet directly, "if a democrat presidential candidate had an election bricked or stolen with proof of such acts at a level never seen before, the democrat senators would consider it an act of war and fight to the death. mitch and the republicans do nothing, just want to let it pass. no fight." so, donald trump was equated with democrats would do if their election was stolen. he said they would fight to the death. why do you think he sensed that tweet? because he is trying to say, "hate the other side would fight to the death so you

should buy to the death!" do we read that any other way? —— fight to the death. mr president. the senator from missouri- _ mr president. the senator from missouri. mr— mr president. the senator from missouri. mr presen _ mr president. the senator from missouri. mr presen on - mr president. the senator from missouri. mr presen on my - mr president. the senator from i missouri. mr presen on my behalf mr president. the senator from - missouri. mr presen on my behalf and on behalf of — missouri. mr presen on my behalf and on behalf of senator _ missouri. mr presen on my behalf and on behalf of senator kramer, - missouri. mr presen on my behalf and on behalf of senator kramer, i - missouri. mr presen on my behalf and on behalf of senator kramer, i send i on behalf of senator kramer, i send the question to the desk. —— mr president — senator holly on behalf of himself

and senator kramer sent a question for the council and house manager and following our procedure, the first one to respond after it is read will be the council for the former president. —— senator hawley. if the senate's power to disqualify is not _ if the senate's power to disqualify is not derivative _ if the senate's power to disqualify is not derivative of— if the senate's power to disqualify is not derivative of the _ if the senate's power to disqualify is not derivative of the power- if the senate's power to disqualify is not derivative of the power to i is not derivative of the power to remove — is not derivative of the power to remove a — is not derivative of the power to remove a convicted _ is not derivative of the power to remove a convicted president. is not derivative of the power to i remove a convicted president from office. _ remove a convicted president from office. couid — remove a convicted president from office, could the _ remove a convicted president from office, could the senate _ remove a convicted president from office, could the senate disqualifyl office, could the senate disqualify a sitting _ office, could the senate disqualify a sitting president _ office, could the senate disqualify a sitting president but _ office, could the senate disqualify a sitting president but not - office, could the senate disqualifyj a sitting president but not remove him or— a sitting president but not remove him or her? — if the senate passed a power to

disqualify — if the senate passed a power to disqualify is _ if the senate passed a power to disqualify is not _ if the senate passed a power to disqualify is not derivative - if the senate passed a power to disqualify is not derivative of. if the senate passed a power tol disqualify is not derivative of the power _ disqualify is not derivative of the power to — disqualify is not derivative of the power to remove _ disqualify is not derivative of the power to remove a _ disqualify is not derivative of the power to remove a convicted - power to remove a convicted president— power to remove a convicted president from _ power to remove a convicted president from office, - power to remove a convicted president from office, couldl power to remove a convicted i president from office, could the senate — president from office, could the senate disqualify— president from office, could the senate disqualify a _ president from office, could the senate disqualify a sitting - senate disqualify a sitting president— senate disqualify a sitting president but— senate disqualify a sitting president but not- senate disqualify a sitting president but not remove| senate disqualify a sitting - president but not remove him or senate disqualify a sitting _ president but not remove him or her? they have _ president but not remove him or her? they have two — president but not remove him or her? they have two and _ president but not remove him or her? they have two and a _ president but not remove him or her? they have two and a half _ president but not remove him or her? they have two and a half minutes. - they have two and a half minutes. they have two and a half minutes. the council for the former president. no. but i can't let this rest. mr castro attributed a statement the time before last that he was up here that donald trump had told his people to fight to the death. i'm not from here, i'm not like you guys, i was being very polite and giving him an opportunity to correct the record and i thought that's exactly what he would do. but

instead what he did was he came up and illustrated the problem with the presentation of the house case. it's been smoke and mirrors and worse, it's been dishonest. he came up and tried to cover when he got caught as they were caught earlier today with all of the evidence checking tweets, switching dates. everything they did and bear in mind, i had two days! to look at their evidence and when i say two days, i mean they started putting in the evidence so i started being able to look at it. that is not the weight this should be done but what we discovered was he knew what he was doing. he knew that the president didn't say that to his people. what he says was if it happened to the dems, this is what they would do, in his speech that

day do you know what he said? he said, "if this happened to the democrats, if the election was stolen from the democrats, all hell would break loose." but he said to his supporters we are smarter. we are stronger, and we are not going to do what they did all summer long. so, what he did was he misrepresented a tweet to you to put forth the narrative that is wrong. it's wrong. it is dishonest. and the american people don't deserve this any longer. you must acquit. managers on the part of the house of representatives have two and a half

minutes. ., ., , , ., ., , minutes. that was profoundly inaccurate — minutes. that was profoundly inaccurate and _ minutes. that was profoundly inaccurate and irrelevant - minutes. that was profoundly| inaccurate and irrelevant what minutes. that was profoundly - inaccurate and irrelevant what the question— inaccurate and irrelevant what the question is— inaccurate and irrelevant what the question is so i am going to get back— question is so i am going to get back to — question is so i am going to get back to the question. so under article — back to the question. so under article two section four, a president who is in office must be convicted — president who is in office must be convicted before removal. and then it must— convicted before removal. and then it must he _ convicted before removal. and then it must be removed before disqualification, 0k. it must be removed before disqualification, ok. but if the president is already out of office, then he _ president is already out of office, then he can be separately disqualified as this president is but these powers have always been treated _ but these powers have always been treated as — but these powers have always been treated as a separate which is why i think— treated as a separate which is why i think there — treated as a separate which is why i think there have been eight people who have _ think there have been eight people who have been convicted and removed and just— who have been convicted and removed and just three of them disqualified. there _ and just three of them disqualified. there is— and just three of them disqualified. there is a _ and just three of them disqualified. there is a totally separate process within _ there is a totally separate process within the — there is a totally separate process within the senate for doing this. the constitution requires two thirds vote for— the constitution requires two thirds vote for conviction, before

disqualification, it is a majority vote _ disqualification, it is a majority vote it's — disqualification, it is a majority vote it's a _ disqualification, it is a majority vote. it's a separate thing. so, people — vote. it's a separate thing. so, people could vote to convict and then _ people could vote to convict and then vote — people could vote to convict and then vote not to disqualify if they felt that — then vote not to disqualify if they felt that the evidence demonstrated, that the _ felt that the evidence demonstrated, that the president was guilty of incitement to insurrection, they could _ incitement to insurrection, they could vote — incitement to insurrection, they could vote to convict but if they felt that — could vote to convict but if they felt that they did not want to exercise _ felt that they did not want to exercise the further power established by the constitution to disqualify, they would not have to do that _ disqualify, they would not have to do that and that could be something that is— do that and that could be something that is taken up separately by the senate _ that is taken up separately by the senate by— that is taken up separately by the senate by a majority vote. mr senate by a majority vote. president. senate by a ma'ority vote. mr president. the — senate by a majority vote. mr president. the senator - senate by a majority vote. mr president. the senator from i president. the senator from massachusetts. _ president. the senator from massachusetts. i— president. the senator from massachusetts. i send - president. the senator from massachusetts. i send a - president. the senator from - massachusetts. i send a question to the desk- -- — massachusetts. i send a question to the desk... studio: _ massachusetts. i send a question to the desk... studio: 2? _ massachusetts. i send a question to the desk... studio: ?? transmiti massachusetts. i send a question to i the desk... studio: ?? transmit ?? capnext the desk... studio: 2? transmit 22 capnext ?? _ the desk... studio: 2? transmit 22 capnext 22 linebreak _ the desk... studio: 2? transmit 22 capnext 22 linebreak you - the desk... studio: 2? transmit 22 capnext 22 linebreak you are - capnext 7? linebreak you are watching bbc news as they asked questions on the second impeachment trial of donald trump. we will leave the proceedings there but do stay with us for more of the day's news.

hello, the weather is set to change, no doubt some much—needed milder weather is in by next week and we start to see the weather changing during saturday. we have a what the front with a bit more about it coming into western parts of the uk but it is bumping into the cold air that we have still got in place. for some areas there is going to be some snow and that is mostly going to be affecting northern ireland, 5—10 cm and wizards and drifting over the hills as well. that is where we will have the biggest impact, that band of weather weather will move slowly eastwards, mr of rain perhaps in the south west of them patchy snow for wales sent into western scotland, in these areas the snow should not amount to too much and further east

it will be dry up attend to cloud over more and will probably be colder on saturday when you factor in that it's also going to be a windy day on saturday. it will feel very cold, a bit like it did on friday. temperatures feeling more like —6 or —7. you can see that it doesn't get much further east at all. it may well continue into scotland but for large parts of the uk it becomes dry overnight. we get more cloud coming in and it is still windy but still close enough for a touch of frost across the eastern side of both scotland and england. the risk of some icy conditions for a while in scotland but we will see rain pushing in from the west and the winds continue to strengthen through the irish sea, north channel and into western parts of scotland. but eastern areas of england should be dry for most of the day but a slow rising temperature. it will still feel cold in the wind come out to the west where it is wetter, temperatures are likely to reach double figures. that is with the milder air that my other air then pushes its way across all areas

overnight and into the start the new week. the weather will feel very different on monday. rain overnight should move away from southeastern areas in the morning. much of the day monday looks like it will be dry and bright. there will be some sunshine. not going to be as windy but we have introduced this milder air, you could get 13 celsius across parts of southern england and wales, we will see this note starting to melt, mist and we will see this note starting to melt, mistand murk we will see this note starting to melt, mist and murk in the hills, what are friends bringing in wetter weather on thursday and this might be the way the state of the early part of next week. ran across many parts of the country continuing the snowmelt and getting localised fighting drier in the north—west of scotland and also for northern ireland and for many parts of the country, those temperatures will be in double figures. by the middle part of the week that weather front moves away but there is more showers coming in with that area of low pressure to the north—west of the

uk. forthe pressure to the north—west of the uk. for the first few days of next week, it is milder but there is rain around as well. we look further ahead, most of the rain is actually going to be steered to the west of the uk with areas of low pressure. higher pressure towards the east and that's going to be quite significant as well. underneath that high—pressure is where we have got really cold air. the potential for some of that to come back towards eastern most parts of the uk, it is a risk but at the moment it looks like we will maintain that mild theme going well into next week perhaps into the weekend as well. why do we temperatures will be in double figures and for the most part it should be fine and dry. some wore them or whether by day, and also nowhere near as cold at night. that's it, goodbye. —— some warmer weather.

tonight at ten — the uk economy in 2020 suffered its biggest drop in 300 years as the covid—19 pandemic hit. no room to flourish — the stop—start effect of lockdowns has left some businesses, like this florist, in despair. if my weddings keep postponing, if they start cancelling, i don't think i'll be here 2022. with the pain on the high street all too visible, the chancellor warned the situation would not ease soon. very difficult times are not going to be over in the spring, and while support runs through until the spring, we will set out the next stage of our economic response to coronavirus at budget in early march. we'll be asking whether there's any cause for economic optimism in the year to come. also tonight...